And yet they are world famous and you’re not…
Nonetheless, it still proves the point on gods, mathematical proof and the comment “proof is wrong as it relates to mathematics”.
Probably best to stay on topic.
I can’t really even tell what the claim is; and the quote (bold) you posted seems fraudulent (forgive me but I can’t find it anywhere else, I hope it isn’t fraudulent); but for what it is worth: proof in math is not the same as when someone demands you prove you didn’t drink the last beer in the fridge.
I’m getting the impression you are not serious. If you are; you should change your methods. If you aren’t serious, that isn’t a problem either; but it will be the end of our conversation. I hope you are!
PS: Craig is a fucking liar (Lennox is a loon).
1 Like
It’s not an argument, it’s a statement. Experiments have a limited life span and theists have been running the experiment of gods existing for 10,000 years without the remotest success. Couple that will daily increasing evidence gods aren’t necessary and you can be sure, I have seen the future, none are going to be proved. Simple logic.
If you were able to comprehend my posts, you would realise they are not angry not even as angry as your weak attempts to defeat them.
Please post the rule that state you can only observe and comment in multiple threads otherwise stop stalking.
After 10,000’s of posted comments, I clearly couldn’t careless about who believes what I think. What does give me a great deal of pleasure though is when people react and try to defeat me whan they are ill prepared. I guess that would be you, for one.
Yes I often simplify comments, you will obviously understand I am dealing with simple people.
Good one on the spelling. It’s good that you can get at least one thing right. Keep checking the spelling and in a few years you can move onto comprehension.
Oh and not “in the light of new evidence” it’s pending new evidence until new evidence comes to light.
Oh, I stand corrected! But I can’t see where you have shown it’s not sustainable theory and I can’t see where it is not being constantly being improved with new evidence. Oh and that claim is not hyperbole. Please gain an understanding of the word before using it. There is nothing I have said that offers more than it’s current stauts is unless you can demonstrate where “sustainable theory” offers any evidence that abiogenesis has been proved which would be required to attract the comment hyperbole.
Look I can understand you’re getting excited and want to try to prove you’re intelligent but you’re just not acheiving your goal. But gold star for trying.
I have absolutely no doubt I know it better than you. Please advise the viewers how hyperbole works with something you just admitted most theists know and accept. Can you also claim how hubris also applies claiming to know something everone else does?
Please, please, please… stop using words you don’t understand.
Still quotinng hypebole, twice, and wrong use both times (you really aren’t the sharpest tool in the shed are you). Just prove it applies or stop using it incorrectly.
Oh I’m sorry, so there is proof of gods? Well let’s hear it…
For those so dumb they think a point is being made here: According to Sheldon if you say unicorns don’t exist, you have to prove it to anyone who claims they do. Oh and that’s hyperbole. LOL.
As far as the second part of your comment, is that supposed to mean anything because it doesn’t, it’s just the dumb rantings of a hyper worked up “whatever” who simply wants to put words down, no matter how irrelevant, to prove themelves in some mystical way.
Of course, if I am wrong, feel free to explain how “there are no gods” magically and mystically turns into: “Atheism is a religion”. Oh and of course, your newly learned word hyperbole.
Yes, you definnitely need a few more years on spelling before you move to comprehension.
You have now degenerated into comment that is simply stupid in your failed attempt at one-up-manship. Be a good boy and go back and re-read the post.
I can’t reply to that as there is nothing to repond to. Go to bed and hope when you wake up you’re not still deranged.
Oh dear, there goes that lack of ability to comprehend simple English again.
When exactly does someone have to prove anything they believe but do not stat is true? Oh that’s right… Never.
I think you need to get a life.
Another word you don’t know how to use. And another failure to comprehend. The comment is consciousness cannot exist without a god. Consciousness is currenly only theoretical as it has no actual proof or explanation i.e. we can’t explain what consciouness is let alone prove it exists without a god. And key researchers of the subject claim we may never know. So you’re talking absolute unsustainable rubbish.
Given we can’t explain what consciousness is, it is most definitely up to the person claiming it can’t exist without a god to prove what it is first.
Maybe you should go and play with your trainset.
Please refrain from telling me what to do when it was inconistic who started the insults first.
Wow, you just can’t get anything right can you.
Yes well, come back when you have a definition for subjective.
Only to those who think such evidence sufficient, theists for example. @Cognostic just carefully explained this to you?
You’re missing the point yet again, @Cognostic was not claiming personal testimony was sufficient evidence for believing in a deity. Merely that whilst it is by definition evidence, it is not necessarily sufficient to believe something.
So nobody has ever lied or made anything up under oath in a courtroom, or used rhetoric as if it were describing fact? Dear oh dear, this is like teaching a chimpanzee to use a smart phone.
Fuck me that was funny, fair play, albeit unintended no doubt.
Why would you imagine being world famous and being nuts are mutually exclusive?
Do you understand that the word proof has different meanings in the context of everyday debate and in mathematics? It really is that simple.
Proving something with sufficient evidence is very different from a mathematical proof, yes?
They’re not mutually exclusive.
I am dubious, and that is not merely simple but simplistic, and it has no basis in logic, quite the contrary,to claim something is untrue because there is no evidence or because it has not been proved true, is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, so it is irrational by definition.
I’d remain stupefied at their content, and the misplaced hubris.
This is a public debate forum, so you don’t get to tell anyone else where when or what they can post on this forum, and I will post as and when I am minded to.
It’s almost like your hyperbole is involuntary, like a form of Tourette’s, and I think you mean care less, not careless, though your feelings about how your assertions are received is not really relevant, your posts are relentlessly erroneous.
This does not address your error, it wasn’t simplified, it was wrong. Nothing in science is beyond challenge.
Again I can only hope this misplaced hubris is meant as irony, or that you are a precocious child.
I know what it means thank you, it was I who used the phrase. The salient point is whether you now grasp that scientific ideas must always remain tentative, and are never beyond being challenged.
I am confident that I understand what hyperbole means, and just as confident it is ubiquitous in your posts.
Guess again.
Utter gibberish again? It is becoming clear that English is not your first language, and would have been better if you had simply made this clear from the start, rather than doubling down on your hubris and hyperbole.
Oh I am happy for others to read this exchange and decide for themselves whether my grasp of language and the topic are adequate. However you need to understand that you can’t tell others what or when to post on here, this is a public debate forum. Incidentally this would be a very good example of hubris, as would your constant self aggrandising claims to be right. The hyperbole of many of your claims speaks for itself.
Straw man fallacy, I neither claimed nor implied any such thing. I merely challenged your sweeping and hyperbolic claim.
LOL indeed, I cannot imagine a more fitting epitaph to that, kudos.
Here it is gain then: “Theists and religious apologists have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to misrepresent atheism as a claim or belief, in order to reverse the burden of proof, the atheists here have spent many hours carefully refuting such claims, and you will simply give them ammunition with this ludicrous hyperbole.”
Which words are tripping you up?
More inroy one would hope?
Another straw man fallacy, I made no such claim.
And the irony just keeps on coming…
So that’s a no then, you don’t know what an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is, I doubt anyone is suprised. Again the ad hominem, hubris and hyperbole are almost comically misplaced.
Leaving aside the hilarity of you challenging anyone’s comprehension of English for a moment, I will try and dumb this down for you with bullet points:
- All claims carry a burden of proof.
- You claimed you didn’t believe consciousness exists.
- Ipso facto your claim carries a burden of proof.
- Your disjointed hyperbolic rant doesn’t address that burden of proof.
You’re, not your, the latter is a possessive pronoun.
Please demsonater some objective evidence to support this assertion? I’d ask you to rein in your hyperbole and hubris again, but to be honest it is so comical to see you make these derogations of my grasp of language, while putting full stops in the middle of sentences, that I just don’t have the heart.
Again I can only reiterate you don’t understand the arguments being made, if anyone can bothered they can go back and take a look, but I’d advise against it.
I am starting to wish I had one, as walking you through the most basic errors in reasoning seems like an utterly futile exercise.
So no credible answer then, I shan’t even try and feign surprise.
You’re a clown…that’s all the ad hominem I can be bothered to reciprocate, as it is clearly like kicking a puppy.
3 Likes
HEY!@!!! Whose toes you stepping on there!~!! I’ll have you know I got an A+ in Tin Man’s 'Smat Phon Course for Simians. I got a repert cad to proof it.
Not only do you step on poor monkey feet, but you insult puppies too. Damn that was a long post! Most enjoyable wall of text I have read in a while. LOL
2 Likes
- Personal testimony is evidence, bad evidence.
- Testimony in court is often from the imagination.
2 Likes
I’ve read your posts and the responses to them. I think, as do others here I’d bet, that you are undefeated only in your own mind.
5 Likes
Quit with the personal attacks.
1 Like
@Sheldon Interestingly enough, it’s true. What impressed me most was how FAST he can type/text. Being able to use both his hands AND feet obviously has advantages. Although, in all fairness, with my woefully limited rudimentary knowledge of smart phones being what it is, that “A+” I gave him may not hold much weight. Still, he INSISTED on a diploma, and I wasn’t about to pass up on the fifty bucks he was offering.
(Edit for educational funding opportunities.)
3 Likes
Grudgingly, Lucy, I have to admit you make a good point. Based on what I’ve seen thus far, it is quite evident the folks here are terribly unprepared to even engage you, MUCH LESS defeat you. That’s just a silly and fanciful pipe dream. It’s fascinating to watch, though, I must say. Kinda reminds me of that time I watched a Master chess player try to defeat a pigeon in a game of chess. That poor Chess Master was totally ill prepared. He stood ZERO chance against that pigeon. You, good sir, are indeed the Pigeon of Debate.
1 Like
If it was a debate between a pigeon and Lucy, I’d be putting my money on the pigeon, based what I’ve read here.
2 Likes
Indeed, a pigeon is difficult to defeat. Lucy against a pigeon would most certainly be battle of epic proportions.
1 Like
And all Gods are real based on the evidence and the ‘believers’ low bar of evidence acceptance. The issue is not whether personal testimony is evidence. “IT IS” The fact that you are ignorant of this is your problem not ours. You asserted there in “No Evidence” and you are demonstrably 'WRONG" once again.
Atheists tend to have a higher standard of evidence and do not accept personal testimony without supporting evidence. I have no problem with a person seeing something moving in the bushes in a forest, but when they call it Big Foot, I want a bit more evidence than just 'What else could it be?"
As I have said before… You ‘KNOW’ way too many things to survive on a site like this. You don’t understand logic or reason, and you certainly do not have a grasp on skepticism. You are wallowing in the dark, looking for something to grasp and hold onto as ‘real knowledge’ so you can make your inane comments. There are too many intelligent people on the site to let you get away with your irrational sweeping generalizations. Your belief that you have it all figured out, makes you look like an idiot.
EDIT: Your problem is you do not know the meaning of the word 'Evidence" Let’s see if I can help you out there.
EVIDENCE: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true. Google?
“INFORMATION COUNTS.”
Propecy is information, Miracles are information, Answered prayers are information, People professing to ‘feel God in their hears’ are information. All of this is in fact “EVIDENCE.” The problem arises when the ‘Evidence’ does not support the ‘claim.’
(When the evidence is insufficient to justify the claim.) As when you assert “There is no God.” and then can not substantiate your claim with facts and evidence. As when you assert “There is no subjective experience without a brain,” and then are demonstrated to be ‘WRONG.’ All you do is make inane and unsupported assertions about the world around you. Isn’t it tiresome being wrong all the time?
I have this idea that you think you are winning arguments against theists or those who disagree with you. The fact of the matter is, your pedantic “I know everything” way of arguing your point, is dishonest, narrow-minded, dogmatic, and no one wants to deal with your bullshit. You aren’t winning arguments, people just think you are a fucking nutjob and do not want to have discussions with you.
(Sorry about the ‘nut-job’ comment Tin Man, I didn’t mean to insult the ligament challenged among us.)*
3 Likes
Poor Lucy… I keep telling him that he ‘Knows’ too much to be on a site like this. He probably needs to find a good Christian Bashing site. I say we give him a torch and a pitchfork, pin a little note to his shirt, wish him luck, and send him on his way.
1 Like
No offense taken. In this case, I totally understand.
Maybe if it was a dead pigeon, with a learning difficulty.
3 Likes
All gods are proved real to those who believe them so, clearly or you wouldn’t be so butt hurt, because all those pesky theists aren’t paying due deference to your grandiloquent self aggrandising guff, anymore than anyone here is.
What you should do is start an organisation called Global Atheists inc., then at the first meeting elect yourself leader, since only you’ll be there get your mother to second the motion. Then get a T shirt printed, in fact get a few, that way when your mother is washing them you will always have a spare, in case she forgets who is the leader of Global Atheists inc.
3 Likes
Do we count this one as an Ad-populum or an ‘appeal to authority?’ Fuck, it’s so hard to keep up.
Appeal to authority, Uri fucking Geller was world famous, Ted fucking Bundy was world famous, only Lucy would use that as a retort for someone who has been labelled a nutjob. As if being world famous and nuts were somehow mutually exclusive. Plus the mathematician Nyarl cited as a nutjob isn’t world famous, outside of maths and making bizarre and nuts claims in religious apologetics I doubt many people have heard of John fucking Lennox.
1 Like
Ok, that was a good one, even Captain Cat had to jump off my lap and head for the neighbour’s flower beds after reading that one liner. Kudos mate. At least he doesn’t wear trousers…me…well…
1 Like